New MassTLC study richly documents how newcomers grow the economy, cause less crime than natives, and do high-tech jobs that Americans won't do.

Donald J. Trump, TwitterPresident Donald Trump may be resolutely anti-immigrant, but he is also studiously wrong about the positive impact that immigrants have on the U.S. economy. Far from taking "our" jobs, causing crime, and slurping up government handouts, immigrants are more likely than natives to create billion-dollar companies, work in the high-tech industry, and help create a bigger, better American future.

That's the inescapable conclusion of "The Economic Impact of Immigration in the U.S., a massive (and massively documented) study from the Mass Technology Leadership Council (MassTLC), a trade nonprofit, that grew out of the group's efforts to blunt Trump's immigration bans.

As of January 1, 2016, "[i]mmigrants have started more than half (44 of 87) of America's startup companies valued at $1 billion dollars or more and are key members of management or product development teams in over 70 percent (62 of 87) of these companies." More than half of Silicon Valley's corporate founders are immigrants.

The integral role that immigrants play in the technology industry is one of job creation, innovation, and leadership. Far from taking jobs, immigrants are creating jobs for the native-born population and helping meet the needs of an industry constrained by a lack of skilled workers. By 2020, for example, projections indicate that 1.4 million computer specialist positions will be open in the United States, but domestic universities will only produce enough graduates to fill 29 percent of those jobs. In Massachusetts today, there are seventeen technology jobs for every person who graduates with a college degree in computer science or information technology.

Immigrants are responsible for substantial economic growth. This is true of the U.S. economy where, in 2015, immigrants contributed $2 trillion to the U.S. GDP, representing 11 percent of the country's total GDP. It is also true of the Massachusetts economy, where one study found that if half of Massachusetts' 3,608 advanced level graduates in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) related fields, studying on temporary visas, remained in Massachusetts upon graduation, then 4,726 new jobs would be created for U.S.-born workers by 2021.

Research indicates that immigrant students are disproportionately more likely to get their degrees in a STEM field – an area of critical domestic talent shortages – and that international students make up over 30 percent of the post-baccalaureate degrees in STEM fields. Furthermore, individuals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – the six countries subject to the President's revised Executive Order – are more likely to have a bachelor's degree, approximately twice as likely to have a graduate degree, and four times as likely to have a doctoral degree relative to the native-born population.

In addition to this population being disproportionately educated and skilled, they are also part of a population making immediate impacts on the U.S economy. During the 2015-16 academic year alone, international students contributed $32.8 billion to the U.S. economy and supported more than 400,000 jobs.

The study notes that according to national surveys by Pew, Gallup, and others, majorities of Americans believe that immigrants (particularly illegal immigrants) increase crime rates. The actual correlation runs in the other direction: As the immigrant share of the population has risen, crime has gone down:

MassTLC

While immigrants are more likely to be the victim of a hate crime, they are no more likely than native-born Americans to be radicalized, according to the database Profiles of Individual Radicalization in the United States (PIRUS).

It's notoriously difficult to have a fact-based, rational argument over immigration policy, especially when elected officials such as Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and the president are attacking the basic humanity of immigrants. Indeed, when dreaming of an electrified fence between Mexico and the United States, King once noted, we "do this with livestock all the time." But if you are interested in grounding your position in reviews of the literature about how immigrants affect economic growth, unemployment, and crime (including terrorism), check out the MassTLC report for a treasure trove of information.

Nick Gillespie is the editor at large of Reason and the co-author, with Matt Welch, of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America (2011/2012).

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

It is also conflating having a degree parchment with being skilled. When it gets to the assertion that the most skilled STEM immigrants come from the most problematic Muslim countries one begins to suspect that you are wading through hip deep BS.

"As of January 1, 2016, "[i]mmigrants have started more than half (44 of 87) of America's startup companies valued at $1 billion dollars or more and are key members of management or product development teams in over 70 percent (62 of 87) of these companies." More than half of Silicon Valley's corporate founders are immigrants."

I guessing none of them are Sharia-mongers. It's possible immigrants come in many flavors.

"The actual correlation runs in the other direction: As the immigrant share of the population has risen, crime has gone down"

We should be clear about a few things.

1) Because crime rate and the overall level of immigration aren't positively correlated doesn't mean that immigration doesn't contribute to crime--certainly not if the crime rate would be even lower without immigration.

2) Crime studies on immigration show over and over again that immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born Americans--of the same socioeconomic level. However, if newly arrived, unskilled immigrants from Mexico and Central America commit less crime than native born, high school drop out, gang members in inner city Detroit, that isn't particularly reassuring.

3) As future generations of children born to immigrants become increasingly Americanized, they revert to the mean--committing crime at the same rate as others in their socioeconomic level. If East L.A. is full of cholos, most Americans don't find it particularly reassuring that they're American citizens.

4) To most Americans, the observation that it's the second and third generations that become gang members and terrorists, not the immigrants themselves, that doesn't imply that we should let their innocent parents across the border to live here and start families. Quite the contrary.

This was particularly misleading, and I think purposefully so. Nick knows damn well that correlation doesn't mean causation. Does Nick think iPhones help reduce crime because crime rates have decreased while iPhone sales have grown?

5) "Research indicates that immigrant students are disproportionately more likely to get their degrees in a STEM field – an area of critical domestic talent shortages – and that international students make up over 30 percent of the post-baccalaureate degrees in STEM fields."

Gee, I wonder if that causes any resentment among average Americans who are supporting these universities with their taxes. It's bad enough when blue collar workers are forced to pay for the education of elites who hold little but contempt for average Americans. Do you suppose some Americans might resent it even more if they're supporting a school with their taxes that's disproportionately supporting the elite from other countries?

The international students typically pay out-of-state tuition and some schools have added an even higher third tier of tuition for international students. The higher rates are so the state residents aren't subsidizing low tuition rates with tax dollars for international students. International students are cash cows for universities not tax gobblers.

The amount of money taxpayers pay to universities in this country is staggering, be it through research grants, student loans and grants, etc., at the federal level, or the outright support of schools at the state level--be it in the form of faculty salaries and support staff. Aren't state colleges staffed by government employees? Aren't their salaries, health, and retirement benefits paid for by taxpayers? We haven't even started talking about the money taxpayers pay to fund things like stadiums for school sports teams, etc.

Taxpayers think their taxes are supporting these universities so that they and their kids have a chance at a prosperous future--not because they want to provide more opportunities for elitist kids from other countries.

No really.

Selling immigration to blue collar workers as a means for elitist kids from foreign countries to get jobs that they were hoping maybe their kids might get is really misreading the audience. American taxpayers aren't likely to oppose restricting immigration because they're worried that foreign elitist kids won't get a good shot at a graduate STEM degree.

Ken, you're full of shit. Your response doesn't even remotely touch the point SKR was taking. Massive fucking deflection on your part.

Taxpayers think their taxes are supporting these universities so that they and their kids have a chance at a prosperous future--not because they want to provide more opportunities for elitist kids from other countries.

No really.

Selling immigration to blue collar workers as a means for elitist kids from foreign countries to get jobs that they were hoping maybe their kids might get is really misreading the audience. American taxpayers aren't likely to oppose restricting immigration because they're worried that foreign elitist kids won't get a good shot at a graduate STEM degree.

SKR just correctly pointed out to you that international students typically pay out-of-state tuition rates and as such, earn more money for Universities. It's not like the government is subsidizing their cost to attend. It's been pointed out to you time and fucking time again that the demand for STEM job applicants is vastly higher than the supply of American STEM graduates.

Frankly, who gives a fuck if some blue-collar people who would NEVER seek a STEM degree think some "international elitists" (which is some bullshit hate-mongering terminology by the way) are taking their university spots? They're not, if someone wants to apply to an institution for a STEM-type degree at a university and has decent grades THEY WILL BE ACCEPTED.

So really, the admission here is that they should loosen the requirements for getting a STEM degree? The foreign immigrants who are going to American schools for these programs are probably people who already had a degree that America doesn't recognize. That's assuming they're the immigrant, and they aren't the child of an immigrant.

Also, it should be noted that the 'STEM Job Shortage' is only partially true. There are plenty of I.T. people, especially, that find it tough to find a job. STEM covers a wide range of jobs, so looking at aggregate data is bullshit. Looking at aggregate data by companies who are pushing for more visa's are equally bullshit. (At least in my view.)

Why is that, if there's such a shortage of I.T. people, that entry level I.T. wages haven't gone up significantly one wonders? Perhaps it's just masked by the overall wage stagnation?

The aggregate argument works against you as well. Why put so much emphasis on I.T. related positions only? We need STEM positions filled, and it's true, there are some areas that don't need additional bodies, but there are certainly some that do.

Does the fact that taxpayers support universities far beyond the scope of tuition escape you?

"Frankly, who gives a fuck if some blue-collar people who would NEVER seek a STEM degree think some "international elitists" (which is some bullshit hate-mongering terminology by the way) are taking their university spots?

Actually, foreigners (especially from those six countries mentioned) who send their kids to universities in the United States are largely among the elitists back where they came from.

Your contemptuous elitism is disgraceful, too, but even if you can't find it in your heart to care about blue collar Americans as people, you'd think it might have occurred to you that middle class, blue collar workers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Wisconsin just put Trump into the White House. Don't give a fuck about them? Maybe you should.

I hope you're not a STEM graduate yourself from some other country--because showing contempt for the American taxpayers who supplied you with a school to attend and tolerated your presence here would be shameful.

It's one thing to suck the blood out of the American taxpayer--even worse to bite the hand that fed you.

Your contemptuous elitism is disgraceful, too, but even if you can't find it in your heart to care about blue collar Americans as people, you'd think it might have occurred to you that middle class, blue collar workers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Wisconsin just put Trump into the White House. Don't give a fuck about them? Maybe you should.

That's funny, dumbass, since I'm one of those blue-collar folks from Wisconsin. Economics degree working as a Credit Analyst for just above poverty line, but I just got accepted to a Master's program in Computer Science. Try harder you fucking moron.

If you don't want to be called a disgraceful contemptuous elitist, maybe don'r go around saying disgracefully contemptuous elitist shit like, "Frankly, who gives a fuck if some blue-collar people who would NEVER seek a STEM degree think some "international elitists" (which is some bullshit hate-mongering terminology by the way) are taking their university spots?"

Seriously, taxpayers don't fund these institutions out of concern for the job prospects of the foreign elite.

"Taxpayers think their taxes are supporting these universities so that they and their kids have a chance at a prosperous future--not because they want to provide more opportunities for elitist kids from other countries.

. . .

Selling immigration to blue collar workers as a means for elitist kids from foreign countries to get jobs that they were hoping maybe their kids might get is really misreading the audience. American taxpayers aren't likely to oppose restricting immigration because they're worried that foreign elitist kids won't get a good shot at a graduate STEM degree."

Yeah, taxpayers tolerate politician funding these universities because they want better lives for their kids and they're hoping their kids will attend university someday and get a great job Your contemptuous statements about them sounds like something a racist in the South would have said about black people trying to go to white colleges back in the days of segregation.

"Frankly, who gives a fuck if some blue-collar people who would NEVER seek a STEM degree think some "international elitists" . . . are taking their university spots?"

If you aren't ashamed of yourself, you should be. Your elitism is disgraceful.

I'm not happy about taxpayers having to give so much money to the University system, but do you honestly think the majority of that is due to foreigners in STEM related fields? You're unfuckingbelievable.

I've noticed you've changed tactics after getting egg all over your face. Here's the bottom line: the argument that foreigners are stealing STEM spots in Universities from blue-collar American families is a fucking myth and an insidious lie. I got accepted to a Graduate program having only previously taken a single Computer Science course with a 3.4 GPA. It's not that much of a fucking mystery except for dumbasses like yourself with Trump Dicksucking Syndrome.

Any US citizen that's willing to take out debt and has somewhat sufficient grades can get into a STEM related field if they have the drive and aptitude. You, however, seem to want to prop up those who have neither. How "libertarian" of you.

"I'm not happy about taxpayers having to give so much money to the University system, but do you honestly think the majority of that is due to foreigners in STEM related fields?"

You said I was being evasive because I responded to a question about whether foreign students pay higher tuition rates with the answer that tuition can be a relatively small component of a university's income--compared to taxpayer contributions.

Now that I've shown that to be true, you want to run around with the goalposts claiming that I said something I never said--that the majority of funds go to foreigners in STEM fields?!

"American taxpayers aren't likely to oppose restricting immigration because they're worried that foreign elitist kids won't get a good shot at a graduate STEM degree."

How genuine of you Kenny boy. Can't even remember what you're posting now? Even if you don't claim this is your view, you're propagating a false argument and incorporating it into your comments.

Here's another one:

"Taxpayers think their taxes are supporting these universities so that they and their kids have a chance at a prosperous future--not because they want to provide more opportunities for elitist kids from other countries."

Because we're supposed to make policy based on the feelz of a certain group of people correct? Not what's actually beneficial.

"Does the meaning of the word "fungible" escape you?

Does the fact that taxpayers support universities far beyond the scope of tuition escape you?"

And the methods you cited were: research grants, and student loans and grants. These are completely irrelevant in the context a a relatively free society, particularly your weak research grant argument. If we view people as fucking individuals like libertarians are supposed to instead of groups like proggies, once a foreigner is accepted at a University, research grants should go to the best candidates. If that happens to be a foreigner, so be it. If that happens to be an American, so be it.

"Yeah, taxpayers tolerate politician funding these universities because they want better lives for their kids and they're hoping their kids will attend university someday and get a great job Your contemptuous statements about them sounds like something a racist in the South would have said about black people trying to go to white colleges back in the days of segregation."

Again with the feelz argument. As far as the racist bullshit, come on, even you're not that fucking stupid. I made a factual statement that blue-collar workers are not having their entrance at Universities stolen by them from foreigners. That's a fact. I then posited that we should not, again, make policy based on the feelz of a group of people. Your argument is an argument for protectionism and nothing more.

I'll say it one more time for you. We should not base policy on whether or not a specific group of Americans like it or not. There is a shortage of STEM labor. Filling that with talent abroad is good policy. Now whether the people earning the research grants are foreigners or not is irrelevant. I've never really known libertarians to be critical of competition.

"If you don't want to be called a fucking moron, then don't propagate the myth and lie that foreigners are stealing university spots from poor, helpless blue-collar workers. You're a fucking joke."

This is what Mithrander accused me of saying.

When I denied it, he quoted me saying this:

"American taxpayers aren't likely to oppose restricting immigration because they're worried that foreign elitist kids won't get a good shot at a graduate STEM degree."

If you can't tell the difference between your lying about me saying that foreign university students are stealing university spots from blue collar workers, one the one hand, and me saying that blue collar workers aren't likely oppose immigration restrictions because they're worried about foreign kids not getting a graduate STEM degree?

Yeah, there are all kinds of people in college who are supposedly really smart--but say stupid or dishonest shit like you did.

Does your grad school know you can't tell the difference between saying that blue collar workers think foreign grad students are stealing their jobs, on the one hand, and saying that blue collar workers don't pay taxes to support universities because they want to make sure foreign elitists get a good shot at a graduate STEM degree?

Then you quote your dishonest horseshit and put it in bold--is that supposed to be intimidating or something? And calling it dishonest is giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you really couldn't understand the difference between those two statements, you really would be an idiot.

So, you're going back for IT?

Could you not make it into the software engineering program?

P.S. Your statements about blue collar workers are disgracefully elitist. You might as well be a racist. All that stoopid comes from the same stoopid place.

Just make them come here legally so they can pay taxes like the rest of us.
If you are going to force a regressive burdensome tax system on the economy, everyone should have to participate so the producers are not drained of their profits and wealth.

Research indicates that legal immigrant students are disproportionately more likely to get their degrees in a STEM field – an area of critical domestic talent shortages – and that international students make up over 30 percent of the post-baccalaureate degrees in STEM fields. Furthermore, individuals who immigrate legally,from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – the six countries subject to the President's revised Executive Order – are more likely to have a bachelor's degree, approximately twice as likely to have a graduate degree, and four times as likely to have a doctoral degree relative to the native-born population.

There.. Lies fixed.

Let's fix them even more....

Research indicates that illegal immigrants are disproportionately likely to never become students at all, to never get so much as a high school diploma Furthermore, individuals who immigrate illegally,from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – the six countries subject to the President's revised Executive Order – are more likely to have jihadis among them than are legal immigrants from those same places

Oh and can we just knock it off with the distinction between "legal immigrant" and "illegal immigrant" when it comes to immigration restrictionism?

About 90% of the justifications and rationales, and 99.99999% of the passion and anger, of the restrictionist crowd, are directed at ALL immigration, not just illegal immigration.

"Illegals have incompatible cultural values." Well so would legal immigrants, presumably.

"Illegals come here and vote for socialists." Well so would legal immigrants, presumably, if you accept the identity politics premise of the left (which more and more restrictionists do nowadays).

"Illegals come here and just sit on the public dole." Well so would legal immigrants, presumably - in fact it would be easier for legal immigrants to do so, since it's technically illegal for illegal immigrants to get welfare, not so for legal immigrants.

"Illegals come here and take jobs away from Americans." Well so do legal immigrants.

The only real difference is that illegals come here by breaking the law first, while legal immigrants don't. That's it. All of the other arguments apply to both kinds.

The extra anger against illegals and those who enable them is that they are directly opposed to the government having any control of the borders, making it impossible for US citizens to control immigration flows for their benefit.

Never to embarrassed to use the same rhetorical tricks, over and over again. Trump is primarily not anti-immigrant, he is anti illegal immigrant. There is a difference between a immigrant who is here legally and one who is here in violation of the law. To use the term immigrant without making such a distinction is deceptive.

Controlling who crosses a national border is not the same as fencing in livestock.

Or it is and you fence in livestock to keep the valued producers in, the wolves out, vermin under control in defined grazing regions, and wild grazers from competitively grazing in a counter-productive manner.

The only reason you would argue that the fence should come down is if you subscribe to some manner of retarded optimism where you let people do as they may and assume it will achieve some sort of optimal outcome. Even if you somehow achieve anarcho-libertopia, even the most anarchist among the anarcho-capitalist libertarians acknowledge invasion/conquering as the most immediate and basic threat. Assuming someone's not retarded enough to be completely ignorant of both the totality of human history as well as the potential destructiveness of invasive species, the only other reason you would want the fences to come down is because you really fucking hate the cattle.

IMO, Gillespie has demonstrated himself to be at least modestly aware of history and exceedingly loathsome of anyone who can't get on board with his version of cultural libertarianism. The sad part is, the wolves, gophers, and bison don't actually care if you're a run-of-the-mill grain-fed holstein or a hormone-free, grass-fed angus.

"The only reason you would argue that the fence should come down is if you subscribe to some manner of retarded optimism where you let people do as they may and assume it will achieve some sort of optimal outcome."

I'm not going to go as far as to say it's the only reason, but there are a lot of people around here who seem to not believe in barbarians despite what happened to Rome.

I guess I mean that they're ignoring the other half of the dichotomy that they usually tout. As much as fences may dehumanize, they surround or enclose things of value.

Not only can you not have a welfare state and open boarders, you can't have a war on terror and open borders. Or, conversely, if the border is meaningless and you're fighting a war on terror, worldwide is the only way to conduct it. Supposedly, Reason would be against the welfare state *and* the war on terror but, for some reason, a firm stance against lines in the sand which are kinda integral to property rights and which humans have drawn literally since the dawn of civilization is where Reason is going to effect the libertarian moment.

You are absolutely correct that immigrants are good for this country, but immigrants are not the problem, religion is. Judaism and its offshoots Christianity and Islam have plagued this world for far to long. When Moses led his people they killed everyone at the direction of their God. The Vactican army wasn't much better. Now we have the Salafists which are the latest fanatics.